Re-establishing pine on Piedmont cut-over land

Historic, archived document

Do not assume content reflects current
scientific knowledge, policies, or practices.

TATION PAPER NO. 18

RE-ESTABLISHING

ON

AUGUST 1952

PINE

PIEDMONT CUT-OVER LAND ^

BY

o —

E. V. BRENDER
AND
T. C. NELSON

SOUTHEASTERN FOREST

EXPERIMENT STATION

Ashevil le) North Carolina

emmon.
rector

U. S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service

RE-ESTABLISHING PINE ON PIEDMONT CUT -OVER LAND

by E, V, Brender and T, C. Nelson

The common practice of clear cutting merchantable -size pine stands
frequently results in scrub hardwoods instead of a new crop of pines „ The
understory hardwoods , ever present in the merchantable pine stands of the
Piedmont, soon close the canopy and exclude the successful establishment
of pines B If a source of seed is available immediately after clear cutting,
a new stand of pines may become established, However, it is estimated that
at least 15 percent of the pine uplands in the southern Piedmont have re-
verted to brush and low value hardwoods. And this trend will increase as
long as no provisions are made to restock the land with pine, Natural re-
seeding to pine can no longer be obtained on about two million acres, since
a source of seed is not available or the understory hardwoods have obtained
such a strong foothold as to preclude pine seedlings from becoming es-
tablished0 Planting will have to be resorted to if we want to grow pine
on these acres. Even so, establishment of planted pines in recently cut-
over woods, in competition with understory hardwoods, will never be as
successful as old field planting. Some form of pretreating the planting
site may be necessary to establish a satisfactory number of pines.

This paper deals with a study— ^which had two major purposes:
(l) to determine the effectiveness of certain preplanting treatments in
permitting pines to come through hardwood competition, and (2) to compare
survival and growth rate of planted loblolly and slash pine under the
various treatments tested,

DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA

The study was carried out on the Casulon Plantation, near Bishop,
Georgia, The area initially supported a stand of 90-year-old shortleaf
pine, with understory hardwoods consisting chiefly of oaks, hickories,
gums, and shrubby species sucn as dogwood, plum, haw and sumac. The
understory hardwoods were small ^ mostly in the one-inch diameter class.
On the average they gave direct overhead shade to over 17 percent of the
area,

1/ The study was conducted in cooperation with the George Foster Peabody
School of Forestry, University of Georgia, Athens 0

Figure 2. — Pine overs to ry clear cut. Hardwoods

dominate the area.

-2-

TREATMENTS

All of the merchantable pine was cut, leaving the understory hard-
woods and a few scattered pine saplings 0 Immediately after removal of the
pine overstory the area was treated and planted as follows :

Treatment A- -control: Seedlings planted at 6 x 6-foot spacing, without
prior treatment of hardwoods*

Treatment B- -partial "brush cutting and burning: All hardwoods 2 inches
d,b8h, and larger were cut, the brush was piled, and the area was broad-
cast burned and planted at 6 x 6 -foot spacing.

Treatment C- -complete brush cutting: All hardwoods were cut, the brush left
as it fell, and the area planted at 6 x 6 -foot spacing 0

Treatment D- -complete brush cutting and grubbing: All hardwoods were cut
and major roots and root collars grubbed out before planting at 6 x 6-foot
spacing,

Treatment E-=planted openings in the brush cover: Seedlings were planted
in groups of three to six per opening, so that the same number of seedlings
were planted as in 6 x 6 -foot spacing.

The treatments were replicated in four randomized blocks, with 10
plots per block, each plot 0,15 acre in size, One plot in each treatment
was planted to loblolly pine and the other to slash pine, The planted
pine seedlings were remeasured at the end of the first, second, third, and
fifth growing seasons, The seedling height was measured in tenths of feet;
the position of seedlings ( whether free growing, partially overtopped or
completely overtopped) and the occurrence of fusiform rust and glaze damage
were recorded,

RESULTS AT THE END OF THE FIFTH YEAR

The results at the end of the fifth year are summarized in tables 1
and 20 Number of trees have been converted to an acre basis to permit a
more realistic comparison of degree of stocking.

Survival

Analysis shows that loblolly pine had a much higher survival rate
under all conditions tested than slash pine, (^This is also borne out by
an old field planting on the Casulon Plantation with leftovers of the same
planting stocky where loblolly had a survival of 86 percent as against 68
percent for slash pinea)

-3-

Table 1. --Survival and height growth of planted loblolly pines, by treatments

All positions

Seedling

5s free to

grow

Treatment

: Trees

Tree

survival

: Average :

Free • . :
,., . Survivors
seedlings: :

Average

: planted

: height:

height

Number

Number

Percent

Feet

Number

Percent

Feet

free

1/

A
B
C
D
E

1114

11^3
1128
1158
1136

701
8^0
704
8i6
720

62.9

73-5
62.4

70.5
63.4

7.01
8.01
7.60
7.99
7.36

526
748
605
792
540

75
89
86

97

75

7.57
8.35
7.94
8.06
7.88

All treatments combined ~66.6 7°&5 85 8.00

1/

A. Control

B. Partial brush cutting and burning

C. Complete brush cutting

D. Complete brush cutting and grubbing

E. Planted openings in brush cover

Table 2. --Survival and height growth of planted slash pines by treatments

All positions : Seedlings free to grow

Treatment

: Trees

Tree

survival

: Average :

Free :

Survivors

: Average

: planted

: height:

seedlings :

: height

Number

Number

Percent

Feet

Number

Percent

Feet

free

A
B

C
D
E

1202
1136
1158
II58
1136

516
605
428
623
588

42.9
53.3
37.0
53.8
51.8

5.6l
5.96
6.11

6.59
5.46

356
429
291
561
388

69

71
68

90
66

6.10
6.44
6.66
6.81
6.04

All treatments combined

47.7

5.86

73

6.35

Comparison of the results of the preplanting treatments showed
that treatments B (partial brush cutting and burning) and D (complete
brush cutting and grubbing) resulted in significantly higher survival
than other treatments or the control.

The results are somewhat obscured since the source of seed of
the planting stock of both species is unknowna However, the relatively
greater survival and greater juvenile height growth of loblolly pine
over slash pine is in agreement with the findings of other investigators a

A study made in the Alabama Piedmont (l) shows that loblolly
grows faster than slash pine up to an age of nine to ten years a After
that slash pine grows slightly faster than loblolly pineQ The average
survival for loblolly in the Alabama study was 83*2 percent, while for
slash it was 52 o 9 percent,

Another study made in Tennessee (2) quotes survival of loblolly
pine as 80 percent and slash pine as h-"] percent „

In Central Louisiana (3) it was found that loblolly survived
better than slash pine. At 10 years of age, planted loblolly exceeded
slash pine in height by 3 feet on unburned areas, while on burned areas
slash pine was 1 foot taller than loblolly pine.

At Watkinsville, Georgia (k) survival of 6-year-old loblolly
pine was 88 percent, while that of slash pine was 6l percent , The re-
spective heights were 13 feet and 10 feet0

Seedlings Free to Grow

Without cleaning, as indicated in table 1 by the number of free
seedlings after 5 years of growth, loblolly pine planted in openings
or without area preparation could not meet a standard of 600 free -growing
seedlings per acreo Some brush or ground treatment is necessary, and
the number of free seedlings - appears to increase with intensity of treat-
ment „ Brush cutting alone is satisfactory, but 25 to 30 percent more
free seedlings may be obtained with the additional treatment in burning
or grubbingo Cleaning would assure well over 600 free seedlings per
acre in any treatment class „

By the same standard, satisfactory stocking of slash pine cannot
be expected without cleaning, although brush cutting followed, by grubbing
approaches it. The statistical difference between loblolly and slash
pine in number of free seedlings per acre is highly significant.

=5-

Figure h. — Slash pine seedling free to grow.

-6-

Height Growth

Loblolly showed superior height growth over slash pine. Statis-
tically, the difference is highly significant. The average height of
the loblolly seedlings at the end of the fifth growing season was 7=^5
feet, while slash pine was only 5*86 feet in height 8 The free seedlings
averaged 8,00 feet, and 6,35 feet respectively B There is also a trend
indicating that for both species the preplanting treatments stimulated
height growth. The greater height of loblolly pine accounts in part for
a greater percentage of free seedlings among survivors ,

FUSIFORM RUST AND GLAZE DAMAGE

The study was not designed specifically to furnish information
on damage from fusiform rust and glaze, but observations on these two
items were collected and the results are given here.

Twenty-one percent of the slash pine had branch or stem cankers
of fusiform rust as compared with Ik percent on loblolly pine. As for
wind and glaze damage, 3 percent of the surviving slash pines were loose
at the root-collar „ Such seedlings are reclining at a small angle with
the ground and have no chance of recovering,, Less than 1 percent of
the loblolly seedlings are in a leaning position. Their root=collars
are firm, and most of them will straighten cut,

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Clear-cut upland pine stands which contain a relatively light
understory of hardwoods can be successfully planted in the lower Pied-
mont to either loblolly or slash pine, provided the planting is done
immediately after the clear cutting. In this study area, the amount of
ground shaded by understory hardwoods increased from 17 percent to 3^
percent during the first two growing seasons following the harvest
cutting of the pine. Early release cuttings after planting are essential
if adequate standards of survival and growth are expected.

Loblolly pine, under lower Piedmont conditions, survives better
and displays greater juvenile height growth than slash pine. This con-
clusion cannot be accepted at its full value from this study alone,
since the seed source of the planting stock of both species is unknown.
However, other studies in the Piedmont confirm the superiority of lob-
lolly pine,

-7-

Certain preplanting treatments proved to be helpful in establish-
ing a greater number of seedlings , of either species , free from overhead
shade, The most successful treatment was cutting and grubbing, which pro-
vided nearly 800 free loblolly seedlings per acre, and 560 free slash pine
seedlings per acre. Cutting all hardwoods 2 inches and larger, followed
by broadcast burning, provided about 750 free loblolly seedlings per acre,
and ^30 free slash pine seedlings per acre. The cutting of the brush
alone was no better than no treatment »

It must be remembered that the preplanting treatments were applied
on small plots with hand tools, In actual practice the cutting and grub-
bing treatment could be done with a Marden brush cutter or a similar ma-
chine, The cutting and burning treatment when carried out on a larger
scale would also create a hotter burn. In either case, the expected re-
sults should be equally as good as those obtained on the small plots, or
better, There are other modifications which would be applied under actual
practice. For instance, hardwoods above k inches d,b,h. would more than
likely be poisoned with ammate or 2,^,5-T. This would reduce competing
sprouts which crowded out some planted pine seed! 5 ngs in the test plots.

LITERATURE CITED

(1) Goggans, J, F,

1951 Slash and loblolly- pine plantations in Alabama's Piedmont

region, Agr, Expt, Sta,, Ala, Polytech, Inst, Circ, No, 99

(2) Huckenpahler, B= J,

1950 Development of nineteen-year old southern pine plantations

in Tennessee0 Jour, Forestry kQ: 722-723 »

(3) Muntz, Ho H,

19^8 Slash pine versus loblolly in Central Louisiana,

Jour, Forestry k6: 766-767,

[k) Hendrickson, B, Ho and Gibbs, J, A,

19^5 Sixth year progress report., field tests of farm woodland

practices. So, Piedmont Soil and Water Cons, Expt. Sta, ,
U, S0 Soil Conservation Service,

Agriculture -Asheville

NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL LIBRARY

1

102249921

i